Rotate an app publishable key

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructive=true, non-idempotent, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the old key is not killed instantly but survives to a grace deadline. It still doesn't say how long that window is or whether other keys are unaffected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action comes first and the return value second.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back (the old-key grace deadline), which is the key piece an agent needs. It is thinner on operational detail such as grace length or whether the old key keeps working during the window.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so app_id and idempotency_key are fully documented by the schema itself. The description adds nothing about either parameter and doesn't explain the tension between idempotentHint=false and the idempotency_key retry field.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a specific verb ("Issue a new SDK publishable key") with a specific resource, which is unambiguous. It never names the closely related sibling get_publishable_key, so an agent could still hesitate between reading and rotating a key.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (get_publishable_key, create_api_key, revoke_api_key all sit in the sibling list). The rotation intent is only inferable from the tool name and the word "old-key grace deadline".

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.